It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mueller team seeks delay in Russia indictments case (Concord Management) - DENIED

page: 4
46
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Just to be clear, since your OP seems to be a confusing conflation of different things:



The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success.




“The [U.S.] government has attempted service of the summonses by delivering copies of them to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, to be delivered to the defendants,” prosecutors wrote. “That office, however, declined to accept the summonses.


So the Special Counsel Prosecutors want to know that the Defendants have been properly served before trial begins.



“Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained,”


Despite not being properly served, Concord (Putin's Chef) demanded a long list of "Discovery" evidence.


That is especially true in the context of this case, which involves a foreign corporate defendant, controlled by another, individual foreign defendant, that has already demanded production of sensitive intelligence gathering, national security, and foreign affairs information.”


So it appears this is a ploy to find out what Mueller has, while not actually being vulnerable legally...Not served, Not even present in court, Concord (Putins chef) has two Americans representing him.

Lastly...


Friedrich, a Trump appointee based in Washington, sided with Concord and said the arraignment will proceed as scheduled Wednesday afternoon.


I guess Trump's appointees are paying off. LOL

www.politico.com...




posted on May, 7 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Concord invoked voluntary acceptance of service, which is both completely normal and a right delegated explicitly in federal code. Mueller tried playing games by saying they can't proceed or engage in discovery without actual documented service, and the judge rightly laughed.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes how dare they exercise their right to a speedy trial. Mueller should have unfettered power over everything.


The Mueller team proposed that both sides file briefs in the coming weeks on the issues of whether Concord has been properly served.

In a blunt response Saturday morning, Concord’s attorneys accused Mueller's team of ignoring the court’s rules and suggesting a special procedure for the Russian firm without any supporting legal authority.

“Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery,” Dubelier and Seikaly wrote.

The Concord lawyers said Mueller’s attorneys were seeking “to usurp the scheduling authority of the Court” by waiting until Friday afternoon to try to delay a proceeding scheduled for next Wednesday. Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel’s office has not replied at all to Concord’s discovery requests. The lawyers, who work for Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, also signaled Concord intends to assert its speedy trial rights, putting more pressure on the special counsel’s office to turn over records related to the case.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes, it sounds like Mueller is using delay tactics.
I wonder why he would want to delay?



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Probably because there is no legal precedent for it.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It was stupid, because they not only tried to pretend voluntary acceptance was somehow invalid, they wanted to delay it even more by having each side prepare a brief supporting their position. Pure game to raise costs for the defense and to justify another delay. If the prosecution wasn't ready for trial, they shouldn't have indicted. They are the ones that started the clock.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus

Concord invoked voluntary acceptance of service, which is both completely normal and a right delegated explicitly in federal code.


NOPE


Voluntary acceptance of service (United States) ... It means that the served party agrees to voluntarily acknowledge receipt of the complaint or petition without the need to engage a process server.


Concord has not acknowledged receipt of the complaint.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Their appearance is acknowledgement of the complaint. I can never tell if you are being obtuse or deliberately deceptive. Further, :



(D) A summons is served on a organization not within a judicial district of the United States:
(i)If...; Or

(ii) by any other means that gives notice, including one that is:

(a) stipulated by the parties;


By making an appearance before the court, they are acknowledging service voluntarily. By responding to the office of the Special Counsel on behalf of their client, they are acknowledging service voluntarily. Trying to pretend they have to be formally served is the "ploy" you so eagerly attributed to Concord -- who also (again) explicitly acknowledged in their response that their appearance before the court establishes jurisdiction and cited relevant case law (the purpose of the summons formally being served upon a defendant is to establish jurisdiction. Without service the court has no established jurisdiction unless parties voluntarily waive their right to the service process either explicitly or by appearance).

Did you not read the response filed or just not understand it?

edit on 7-5-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

obtuse for the sake of having an argument.



posted on May, 7 2018 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So to recap.
This is #:


So it appears this is a ploy to find out what Mueller has, while not actually being vulnerable legally...Not served,

The party has acknowledged jurisdiction of the court by appearance, and affirmed it in response. It does not need to be served.

And so is this:



Not even present in court, 


Federal Criminal Code
Rule 43:


Rule 43. Defendant's Presence
(b) When Not Required -- A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Organizational Defendant. The defendant is an organization represented by counsel who is present.



Both of these things are even accounted for in response, so I'm really curious how you missed them. I'm sure it was an accident and not due to having no idea what you are talking about or having some weird desire to read into it what you want to see...



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: carewemust
Oh man. Mueller's S.C. team is starting to look really inept, in areas where the rubber meets the road.

Inept.... Or shady?


Those terms are not mutually exclusive in many cases.

Including this case. Actually, especially in this case...



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus

Concord invoked voluntary acceptance of service, which is both completely normal and a right delegated explicitly in federal code.


NOPE


Voluntary acceptance of service (United States) ... It means that the served party agrees to voluntarily acknowledge receipt of the complaint or petition without the need to engage a process server.


Concord has not acknowledged receipt of the complaint.


You seem to have forgotten the first rule of holes:

When you find yourself in one - stop digging.



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: soberbacchus



(D) A summons is served on a organization not within a judicial district of the United States:
(i)If...; Or

(ii) by any other means that gives notice, including one that is:

(a) stipulated by the parties;


By making an appearance before the court, they are acknowledging service voluntarily.


Those are two different things.

Concord has not "stipulated" that the court has jurisdiction or authority?

Having a couple attorneys show up on your behalf does not count.

In fact they have already claimed just the opposite is responding to the summons.



The Russian government's top legal office wouldn't accept paperwork from US law enforcement in the case, and the company has already hit back at Mueller by demanding more evidence and information.




Mueller's team has tried to reach the Russians, first with the summons delivered to the office of the prosecutor general of Russia on March 20. They have also tried to reach the Russians through the power of international treaties. The Russian law enforcement office declined to accept the summonses, US prosecutors said.




The Russian company's attorneys sent the summons from Mueller's office back to prosecutors, saying they hadn't complied with court procedures.

www.cnn.com...

If they are acknowledging the courts authority and jurisdiction, then WHY have they refused the summons?

Why did they show up in court?

Not to acknowledge jurisdiction and authority of the court. Simply showing up does not count.

They showed up to milk the Special Counsel for information.



The Russian company's attorneys asked for information about other employees who Mueller considered to be co-conspirators or who weren't charged in the case, the US people who communicated with the Russians, and recordings and other electronic surveillance of the company's employees.


They have asked for "discovery" without officially acknowledging the courts authority.

This means that they can ignore the courts decision.

Show me where Concord has officially and clearly acknowledged the courts jurisdiction and authority.

www.cnn.com...



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It was stupid, because they not only tried to pretend voluntary acceptance was somehow invalid,




Voluntary acceptance of service (United States) ... It means that the served party agrees to voluntarily acknowledge receipt of the complaint or petition without the need to engage a process server.


Show me that Concord has voluntarily acknowledged receipt of the complaint?

You are falsely claiming that sending a couple attorneys to court for you counts.

The Attorneys have yet to acknowledge that they have legitimately received the complain on behalf of their client.



Mueller’s office sent Concord’s summons to the attorneys on April 20 along with a request to clarify whether they could accept a summons on behalf of their client.

The attorneys did not answer the question and instead sent the summons back to Mueller’s office, claiming it did not comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

www.courthousenews.com...



In the Russian troll case, the St. Petersburg-based firm, Concord Management and Consulting, has hired American defense lawyers and is seeking painstakingly detailed information on the case against the company as well as two other firms and 13 individuals. Among those charged is Yevgeny Prigozhin, who is known as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s chef and is a wealth entrepreneur behind Concord.

When Rosenstein announced the indictment earlier this year, it was widely seen as a “name-and-shame” case, meaning that the individuals and companies charged were all but certain to never show up in court to defend themselves.

However, it now seems that Concord can appear, through its attorneys — risking little but legal fees while potentially using the court’s discovery process to gain access to a trove of sensitive information.

www.politico.com...

This is Putin's ploy.
He want's to know where the leaks came from so he can plug them.
No exposure, no risk.
edit on 8-5-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
You should read the filed response to Mueller's motion, because you obviously aren't reading or believing me. That's fine, but I'm fairly sure you're being deliberately obtuse.

The purpose of a summons is to establish jurisdiction of the court over that individual. You have to formally be put on notice so that the complainant demonstrates you have the opportunity to appear and defend yourself in court. It's one of your rights. Otherwise, it'd be a kangaroo court. "Well, he didn't show, your honour. I told him to be here." If you can't be served after a good faith effort there are a few different ways to handle that. None of those apply here.

You also have the ability to waive that right. It happens all the time. It's not a "ploy".(In civil court, if you don't waive, you usually get tagged for the cost of service even if you're found not guilty/culpable, for example). How this usually works in a corporate criminal case, is the prosecutor calls the attorney(s) on record or the legal department of the company and says, "I've got an indictment. There's going to be a hearing. Are you able to accept service on behalf of your client, or do I have to have it served on Joe Bluecollar?"
Mueller just decided to serve the lawyers on file through the Russian Government instead. It's rude and grandstand-y, and the preferred method by code is to simply communicate with the client instead of trying to play gotcha. So they didn't respond to that or later inquiries. "AHA!", I hear your almost sober cry. "So they weren't served!". Not necessarily. It's possible/probable they were able to receive on behalf of Concord. So maybe they were.
It still doesn't matter though-- Because they put in a notice of appearance on behalf of their client on this case. That's "voluntary appearance" (if they were not properly served). It means regardless of service you are signifying your knowledge of the content of the summons and intent to appear before the court. That gives the court jurisdiction even in the absence of service. It's case law. Saying "it doesn't count" doesn't change that. Pretending you don't know case law and need clarification from the defense does not and did not change that. Not knowing that the organization does not have to personally appear, but can appear through counsel does not changd that.




If they are acknowledging the courts authority and jurisdiction, then WHY have they refused the summons? 

Why did they show up in court? 

Not to acknowledge jurisdiction and authority of the court. Simply showing up does not count. 

One more time: you don't have to accept a summons to place yourself under the jurisdiction of the court. They clearly are voluntarily appearing. They also affirm the case law regarding appearance and jurisdiction in response to Muellers motion. They acknowledged the courts jurisdiction flat out. So there's no reason to prepare briefs asking why or why not they were properly summoned or if jurisdiction has been established (the raison d'etre for a summons). They voluntarily appeared and placed themselves under the court's jurisdiction.

That's why the judge denied the motion for further delay and argument. There is no argument and thus no reason for a delay.
Mueller isn't in his first year as an officer of the court, nor did he soberly read blogs ignoring case law, so there is zero reason for this kind of thing.



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
You should read the filed response to Mueller's motion, because you obviously aren't reading or believing me. That's fine, but I'm fairly sure you're being deliberately obtuse.

The purpose of a summons is to establish jurisdiction of the court over that individual.


Correct...

PC statements require the name of the law enforcement official, their agency and position, the address of the location where the offense occurred, city where the offense occurred and county where the offense occurred followed by the suspects info and then charges.

It is done to establish authority / jurisdiction.



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert


How this usually works in a corporate criminal case, is the prosecutor calls the attorney(s) on record or the legal department of the company and says, "I've got an indictment. There's going to be a hearing. Are you able to accept service on behalf of your client, or do I have to have it served on Joe Bluecollar?"
Mueller just decided to serve the lawyers on file through the Russian Government instead.


Why would you say the above? When I already cited the below?



Mueller’s office sent Concord’s summons to the attorneys on April 20 along with a request to clarify whether they could accept a summons on behalf of their client.

The attorneys did not answer the question and instead sent the summons back to Mueller’s office, claiming it did not comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Beyond that the summons itself gives the court jurisdiction (power over the defendant) once served. "You, Xcathedra, have been summoned on XX date, to appear before the Honourable Judge Judy, in the matter of Y". Without the summons, the court is powerless to rule in the matter. It has no legal authority to do so, because you have the right to be notified in a timely manner and given the opportunity to defend yourself.

If you were to file a complaint in court (in this case a criminal complaint), the court sets a date on the calendar for you. If you haven't had the defendant served when that days comes and he no-shows, the judge is going to say, "I'm sorry I cannot hear this case. You have not demonstrated you afforded him the opportunity to defend himself. I cannot hear a single argument from you because I do not know that he is even aware of this matter before the court. I have no jurisdiction without the summons. I cannot violate his right to present a defense". Actually, she probably says something like, "Get your # together, and stop wasting my time" because that should never go that far down the road.

That's the type of jurisdiction being dealt with here. They have power because they know you were made aware and your rights are therefore not going to be violated if the case proceeds.

Okay, so now what happens when an attorney files a notice of appearance on behalf of the defendant in a case? It says to the court, "I, soberbacchus, wish to inform the court, and all other involved parties, I am officially appearing as counsel on behalf of Xcathedra in the matter of Y". You could file yourself, but why would you if you can have a great attorney like bacchus? He probably works cheap.

If you, Xcathedra have not yet been served this is called "voluntary appearance". You are appearing to defend yourself in the case/matter, but you were not summoned by the court. Well, you were, but it had not been processed and you had not formally received it. Still, you are automatically placing yourself in the jurisdiction (under the power) of the court. Why? Because you have demonstrated to the judge that you are both aware of the complaint placed before it and you wish to make a defense. You can't say later, "I didn't know".
The entire reason the summons exists is to prove that you were notified you had that chance. If you show up voluntarily without a summons, it still demonstrates you were clearly aware and took advantage of that chance. That's why the summons doesn't need to be formally served. The necessary conditions the summons would create already exist. Soo, it is not needed.

Everyone knows this. That's why saying, "We are not clear that they received service through process. Let's argue more about it" is a pointless avenue. As the defense notes in their response to the motion, the defendant has voluntarily appeared through counsel, thus waiving the right to service. It was voluntarily accepted without "due process", if you will. The court accepts this acknowledgement without requiring any further argument. Why? Because both parties are saying the same thing. Mueller says to the judge, "We consider them served and jurisdiction established because x, y, z, but we're not super sure. Don't let them play games about jurisdiction. Let's delay this somemore and argue about it before proceeding. " Concord, through counsel, notes it has already acknowledged jurisdiction by voluntary appearance. This is consistent with case law. The prosecution is playing semantic games over service when everyone accepts jurisdiction is already established. The legitimacy of service doesn't enter the picture.

The judge obviously saw things the same way.



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: RadioRobert


How this usually works in a corporate criminal case, is the prosecutor calls the attorney(s) on record or the legal department of the company and says, "I've got an indictment. There's going to be a hearing. Are you able to accept service on behalf of your client, or do I have to have it served on Joe Bluecollar?"
Mueller just decided to serve the lawyers on file through the Russian Government instead.


Why would you say the above? When I already cited the below?



Mueller’s office sent Concord’s summons to the attorneys on April 20 along with a request to clarify whether they could accept a summons on behalf of their client.

The attorneys did not answer the question and instead sent the summons back to Mueller’s office, claiming it did not comply with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.




Because Mueller had already tried to have it served through the Russian government. He had already played his first game. They didn't need to play along with his second attempt and receive service. They could return the rudeness and break in protocol by saying, "No, sorry, we're not acknowledging service." It's tit for tat stuff because egos are involved. "Nope, sorry. If you're not going to play nice, I'm going to make you jump through the hoops."

But they also filed a notice of appearance while they basically ignored him. This also is a way to establish that the court knows you are aware of the matter before it and establishes your rights are not violated by proceeding (jurisdiction).

ETA: let's put it this way. I have obtained a grandjury indictment of you for embezzlement. Guilty, innocent. Doesn't matter. What might be expected to happen (particularly with organizations who have attorneys of record or a legal team) is that I call the attorney directly as a courtesy and say, "Hey, I've got an indictment. You want it it direct? Are you able to receive service on bacchus's behalf or should I have it served?" But maybe I'm a jerk and/or want to put you on edge, so instead I ignore that option and send a handful of US Marshals to serve you at the office and make a scene around your cubicle. That's not nice. In this case the Marshals (Russian government) was probably just too "busy" to get around to servicing the summons. As a favour to you. But you're in the papers everywhere already anyway. Now I am on the clock so I need to demonstrate you've been served to the judge, but my agents haven't done it yet. I don't expect you to show and defend yourself. I just want the judge to know I served you proper so I can get my kangaroo court case done quickly ex parte. So NOW I try the polite way. And your lawyer because he likes you and sees that I'm playing games says, "Nope, sorry. I'm not accepting that. Figure out how to serve him yourself". I'm sort of in a pickle.

But I have bigger problems. You're not going to be tried in absentia after all! You've filed a notice of appearance and want me to turn over discovery and exculpatory items for your defense. My job is going to be a lot harder if you are actually participating and presenting a defense. I'm running out of time, and I really don't want to tip my hand on where my investigation is at. Damn! Let's try saying we're not sure jurisdiction is established and ask the court to push this back.
edit on 8-5-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2018 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

I still think you are a &^^%$.
But you know your *&^%%.
I have to guess you are an attorney and likely a trial attorney, not someone that collects on his law degree as a fixer like Cohen or an idiot talking head like Giuliani?

Close?



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join